Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline: 1992 Annual Report
| Publication year | 1993 |
| Pages | 1221 |
1993, June, Pg. 1221. Colorado Commission on Judicial Discipline: 1992 Annual Report
Colorado's first disciplinary commission for judges was created in 1966, when Colorado voters approved an amendment to the state constitution that replaced the political process of electing judges with a system based on merit selection, appointment and retention. At the time it was created, only five other states had disciplinary commissions to supplement impeachment as the traditional method of removing judges. Today, all fifty states and the District of Columbia have such commissions.
The voters of Colorado amended the constitution again in 1982 and made substantial changes in the Commission's procedures and membership. The most visible changes involved the Commission's name and membership composition. The name was changed from the Commission on Judicial Qualifications to the Commission on Judicial Discipline. The Commission membership was expanded to include more citizen members.
Today, the Commission consists often members: four citizen members, who cannot be judges or attorneys, appointed by the Governor; two lawyers, each having practiced law for at least ten years in Colorado, appointed by the Governor; and two district court judges and two county court judges appointed by the Supreme Court. All appointments made by the Governor must be approved by the Colorado State Senate.
Commission members are appointed to four-year terms. They serve without salary, but receive reimbursement for actual and necessary expenses. During 1992, the Commission membership included:
The Commission's staff consists of an executive director and general counsel. While the Commission operates independently, it is housed within the judicial branch of government. Its procedural rules are approved by the Colorado Supreme Court, and its operating budget is approved and provided by the Colorado state legislature.
The Commission has constitutional jurisdiction to investigate and act on allegations of a judge's:
Willful misconduct in office, including misconduct which, although not related to judicial duties, brings the judicial office into disrepute or is prejudicial to the administration of justicee
Willful or persistent failure to perform judicial duties, including incompetent performance of judicial duties;
Intemperance, including extreme or immoderate personal conduct, recurring loss of temper or control, abuse of alcohol, or the use of illegal narcotics or dangerous drugs;
Any conduct that constitutes a violation of the Colorado Code of Judicial Conduct; or
Disability interfering with the performance of judicial duties, which is, or is likely to become, of a permanent character.
Misconduct involving a violation of criminal laws may fall within the Commission's jurisdiction, although the Colorado Supreme Court can take action directly to suspend or remove a state judge convicted of a felony or offense involving moral turpitude.
The Commission has jurisdiction over the conduct of the 264 justices, judges and senior judges who serve the state court system. It does not have jurisdiction over magistrates, the seventeen county court judges in Denver nor the more than 300 full-time and part-time municipal court judges serving on the bench in cities and towns throughout the state.
Local municipalities approach judicial discipline in different ways. While complaints against judges in most cities must go to the city council or mayor, the City and County of Denver has a separate Judicial Performance Commission to handle complaints against its county judges, and the City of Lakewood has a Judicial Review Commission that considers grievances against its municipal judges.
Any person may request an investigation of a judge by filing a complaint with the Commission on forms available from the Commission or by writing a letter addressed to the Commission. It is the policy of the Commission to accept and review all complaints filed even if such complaints relate solely to a complainant's disagreement with the decision the judge has entered in a case. The Commission may also commence investigations on its own motion without a written complaint.
Complaints are reviewed during the Commission's regularly-scheduled meetings. The Commission may also hold special meetings. hearings and telephone conferences as needed throughout the...
To continue reading
Request your trial